[Editor's note: Joel Kotkin'sNew Geography website is the last refuge of the urban planning right wing hacks. I used to think there was no way they would pull a piece for being too lazy, too dog whistle-y, or too just plain wrong on facts. But then this piece came along, appearing in my .rss feed only to disappear again shortly later. Enjoy.]

In the next few
weeks, the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul,
is scheduled to vote on a vision for the region's housing and transportation
future. "Thrive MSP 2040” is the council’s comprehensive development plan
for the seven county Twin Cities metro area for the next 30 years. It's a
regional growth plan that will result not in a cure for the area's ills,
though, but in a virus that will kill its vitality.

The
Minneapolis/ St. Paul area is one of the most livable regions in the nation.
That's not because residents were forced onto transit and into high density
housing, as Thrive will do. Growth occurred in a natural manner, in an area
with great schools, because people here had the freedom to choose the size of
yard for their kids, and the ability to embrace the natural openness of the
region. The vigorous suburban growth that resulted has helped our vitality,
despite past decisions from the Met Council to neutralize it.

[Subtext:
I live in an all-white suburb and never think about economic disparities.]

The Metropolitan Council isn't alone in adopting New Urbanist plans on a
wholesale basis. Their approach, and the problems that go with it, are being
repeated by many planning boards nationwide. The 350-page ‘Detroit Future City’
plan, is a tunnel-vision strategy based on the same New Urbanism thought. With
the best of intentions — goals of avoiding pre-fabricated monotony and sprawl,
and creating affordable, livable communities — municipalities are actually
writing prescriptions that will do just the opposite.

[Subtext:
Detroit = scary black people.]

I speak with the perspective of a locally-based development consultant, and an
observer and resident of the region for 31 years. I've witnessed what has
actually helped make this area succeed. At my company,
we've designed hundreds of sustainable neighborhoods that don't adhere to the
New Urbanist principles of high density and only public transit.

Two decades ago, the Met Council placed its faith in an urban growth boundary,
limiting sewer development in the metro area to inoculate itself against
“sprawl”. The result was an increase in the very “sprawl” the council sought to
avoid, as development leap-frogged outside the seven-county area to escape the
high land prices created by the artificial land limitation.

The Met Council hired Peter Calthorpe, the founder of the ”Congress of New
Urbanism”, for several million in tax dollars, to provide a singular vision for
our region’s future growth. The ‘one size fits all’ approach resulted in
projects like Clover Ridge in Chaska, Ramsey Town Center, and indirectly,
others like St. Michaels ‘Town Center’, all of which failed to deliver the
promises that had been made.
Calthorpe’s attempt to create a ‘sense of place’ failed to attract home buyers.
For example, the ‘conventionally planned’ sections of Clover Ridge sold well.
But, with their sardine-like density, the housing along alleys remained vacant.
Because the development did not attract as many homebuyers as anticipated,
among other reasons, local shopping and restaurants did not materialize as the
Met Council had promised.

[Question: Is
this even true? I’d have to go to Chaska to find out… Someone please let me know.]

More recently, ‘Smart Growth’ projects such as ‘Excelsior and Grand’ in St.
Louis Park failed to acknowledge why their retailers were abandoning their
spaces. A spokeswoman for Panera Bread cited location and convenience for
customers. Yet 'Excelsior and Grand is a model New Urbanism plan, complete with
the obligatory central ‘traffic circle’ with a ‘sense of place’ sculpture.

These smart-growth projects are examples of architects preaching a singular
growth model that does not work for all people, in all climates. Those who
assume the working class will appreciate waiting outside in 20 below zero
weather at an architecturally designed “sense of place” bus stop and then
coming home to the 14th floor of a high rise are clueless. And the dense
projects being built in this region have the same sort of repetition of design
that smart-growth planners criticize in suburbia.

[Note: By
“singular growth model”, It’s as if he’s describing single-use single family
cul-de-sac land use patterns. Meanwhile, apartment demand in places like
Minneapolis and Saint Paul are off the charts without sign of slowing.]

Today in the Twin Cities, sales of new, single-family homes are rebounding,
creating a catalyst for economic stability. Despite this market reality, some
developers are still submitting new multifamily housing proposals. That's due
to Met Council density mandates, not because of market demand. The Council’s
assumption is that the population will migrate to the urban core for its
(expensive) restaurants and its 19th century rail technology, abandoning
spacious suburbs and cars. But sales suggest otherwise.

[Note:
the opposite is true.]

The Met Council’s ‘Thrive 2040' vision will undermine the American Dream of
obtaining an affordable single-family home in an area where one desires to
live, with the freedom of travel (and protection from our harsh winters) that
only personal vehicles currently provide.

Under the ‘Thrive’ mandates, more workers will need to live in ‘affordable
housing’ (mid- or high rises) and take mass transit to their jobs. Yet
‘affordable housing’ remains elusive in ‘Smart Growth’ projects, unless it is
heavily subsidized with tax dollars.

[Read:
I like my suburb surrounded by white people, not scary high rises filled with
poor people who don’t look like me.]

Calthorpe’s Congress of New Urbanism actually boasts of the gentrification it
produces. When home prices go up, what happens to the living standard for
displaced low-income families? The working class, regardless of race, should be
outraged by ‘Thrive’.

[Yes,
mixed-use Traditional neighborhood development is very popular.]

Density does not guarantee affordability. We cannot forever throw tax dollars
at high-density development solutions in an effort to make them economically
feasible. A successful, balanced housing market drives the economy. At their
December meeting, let's hope the Met Council recognizes that the 'Thrive' vision
is anything but balanced.

Rick
Harrison is President of Rick Harrison Site Design Studio and Neighborhood
Innovations, LLC. He is author of Prefurbia: Reinventing The Suburbs
From Disdainable To Sustainable and creator of Performance Planning
System. His websites are rhsdplanning.com and pps-vr.com.

5 comments:

As a Chaska resident, I would say that the residential sections of Clover Ridge -- even those in the denser area -- have sold pretty well. It is true, however, that the commercial portion of the mixed-use condo/apartment buildings have been failures. Only 1 business - a hair salon -- has been able to scratch out a consistent presence.

That website http://www.rhsdplanning.com is absolutely hideous. Who in their right mind would let a person design a housing development that can't even make a website that doesn't look like utter crap.